This a long read but you will be rewarded in LOLs. Includes little gifs of a Madden team made entirely of Bradys, etc, etc. http://www.sbnation.com/2014/1/9/5276868/breaking-madden-tom-brady Spoiler
Patriots' success is 80% Bellichick. The dude won 11 games with Cassell, a nobody now. And Cassell got a contract after that year. The Pats haven't won with Brady as THE guy where he's putting up the stats. The years they won, his stats were middle of the pack. Manning is basically his own coach. If he had a defensive mastermind like Bellichick to take care of the other side of the ball every year, he would have more than 1 ring by now (but that would have included the tape).
The thing is, while it's correct in saying Brady hasn't won a superbowl since 2004 when he had those great defenses, he's just been a consistent winner through and through. 8 AFC championships in 13 years. That's crazy. Even after those early years, he still led them to a division title and AFC championship appearance almost every year. He made the superbowl twice during that time with a mediocre defense in 07 and one of the worst defenses in the league in 2011, and while he didn't play superb in either of those, they were in position to win until Eli made those clutch final drives in both games if I recall correctly. I know this year was a masterful coaching job by Belichek, but it's also pretty astounding what Brady's been able to do. Losing his top 5 receivers from last year and basically starting over with an injury-hampered Amendola and two rookie receivers (one undrafted), he still put up pretty good numbers even with Gronk out for all but 3-4 games. And had it not been for a couple of questionable calls at the end of games, they could have been 14-2. Add to the fact that Brady has consistently had less talent to work with all his career and I would have to go with Brady
The QB is the most important position. It's the hardest to replace. Look at teams that have gone through years without finding a QB that can win them 8-9 games. Bellichick was able to win 11, not 7 or 8, games the year Brady went down. The Patriots are his team. They go as he goes. I've never seen a team that much dominated by a coach in any sports. And as you witnessed last week, Tom Brady was less than pedestrian and the Patriots still won in a blowout in a playoff game. Throughout his career, I feel Manning has had to impact the game more for his team to win, than Brady does. Simply b/c one guy has Bellichick, and the other doesn't. The same comparison you can say is on the same parallel path with Wilson vs Luck. We can have the same conversation on these 2 a decade later.
I'm pretty shocked that brady is leading the votes this much. I thought it'd be about fifty fifty. I think manning is better. I think the 3>1 argument is stupid.
They haven't won a superbowl since they were busted for cheating If they on THE TAPE . . they were nigh invincible without it .. . the back in the back of good teams When on THE TAPE Brady . . [add some Tuck rules and various other .. uhm . . .favorable refereeing] , , nigh invincible Rocket River
Brady is the ultimate face of the "system QB" title. His career was made by his head coach. Manning by miles.
Brady threw for 735 yards, 6 TD, 1 INT in those three Superbowls including two last minute game winning drives and a Superbowl MVP.
I'm starting to hate these kind of arguments, and here's why ... in the end they are very short-sighted. Whether it's MJ vs. Kobe; Russell vs. any other all-time great center; or Montana/Bradshaw vs. (fill in any other great QB). People act as if the QB or superstar is the sole or main reason that a team ends up in the position that they are in without regards to the overall status of the team, such as the team's GM, head coach/general manager, talent of teammates, and etc. As great as Brady is, you cannot tell me you couldn't that another all-time great ... top 10-15 QB couldn't eek out 2-3 championship playing for Belichick in New England, behind an offensive line that is often ranked very high and a defense that is often no worst than middle of the road. I can say the same for any QB that might have replaced Montana on the 49ers or Aikman on the Cowboys. Most of the QBs, like other superstars who end up going winless in Super Bowl or Championship victories tend to have other issues at play (not all the time)... but I would say 7 out of 10 times that such a player did not play on the best teams. When people say a player, like Reggie Miller was better than say Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, or Pete Maravich, because they say Miller was more clutch in the playoffs, yet he could not carry a team in the way that those players could. You also have to throw in the fact that Miller played on some awfully talented Pacer teams that were a slight level below championship status. I don't think the other 3 players ever had those luxuries for more than a season or two of their careers. I have heard similar arguments made against George Gervin or LeBron James (before he won the championships)...that they were lesser players without rings, which is ridiculous given the overall talent of the team.
Is it 80% Belichick? He was a coach in Cleveland and they weren't making runs to the Super Bowl. So I would imagine Brady has a lot to do with it a lot more. Also besides a few years with Moss, Brady has not had elite WR's like Manning has through out his whole career.
Brady is great but... I don't know man. Manning has to do everything for his teams. It seems like every team he plays for usually has holes and they turn to complete **** when he's out. Belichick finds a way to win regardless of the circumstances. Brady is out? They still win. How many TD's did Brady have last week? Patriots still win.
Another thing that people are really skipping over in these arguments is the actual skill set of the players in question. For example, Russell had 11 rings vs. Wilt's 3, but realistically speak what skills did Russell possess that actually makes him better than Wilt. I have to say the same about Brady vs. Manning. It's hard to locate what Brady can do better than Manning on actual performance skills (Manning is a outstanding tactician who can make quite few trick shot passes against coverages). It's even more apparent when comparing Brady to a talent, like an Aaron Rodgers or Dan Marino, who both had far better arms than Brady and can manage a game just as well, while Rodgers has the superior athleticism.
Thats not that fair because Brady led 3 or 4 drives down the field where the receiver was brought down a few yards short of the end zone. He could've easily had 3 or 4 TD if they decided to pass the pall on first and goal and short. They instead tried to (rightfully) punch it in with their running backs.
